The primary reason that people riot is that rioting is fun. It gives an immense surge of adrenaline and other hormones, it gives the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. In order for a riot to occur there must be some sort of event that acts as a Schelling point or catalyst. This Schelling point might be a real grievance, or a contrived one. It might be some innocuous event, like a sports victory. News of the riot spreads via the news channels of the day - tv, internet, twitter, etc - and the riot snowballs. The final necessary ingredient is weakness on the part of the police. If the police are outnumbered, and only allowed to manually arrest with handcuffs, then the rioters will go wild, and even more rioters will join as they realize they suffer no consequence for their actions. If the police start beating the hell out of people, or even using live rounds, the riot ends fast.
Banfield's book is online. The section on riots starts on page 211: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49096486/Edward-C-Banfield-The-Unh...
I find that really hard to relate to, although I do see this in some people. I wonder if these people have ever had the thrill of creation--birthing something beautiful and unique into the world? That's quite a rush, too. Are riots ultimately a symptom of a failure to educate, to guide, to nurture?
We all have the urge. Unfortunately, in cases like this one, some also lack the restraint.
I'm not justifying anything here just trying to make an analysis: The reason they don't care is because they don't have a hope in hell of getting a job in mainstream society that would pay enough to get them out of the bunk bed in their parents house. London is so expensive to live in and there's a lot of poorly educated young people that are stuck with no chance of an independent life. So the attitude on the street is like 'we can't get it by getting a job and living normally so we're just gonna take it'. There's very little chance of getting caught at the moment, no reason not to. So it's not really random violence and stealing, it's probably even at some level a rational choice to do this if you are someone in this position.
The police can't cope because they don't seem to understand how the rioters are organising through BBM and because Britain has relatively fewer police officers per head of population compared to other European countries and the US.
Who knows what'll happen next. Twitter is lit up with people saying 'send in the army' at the moment which seems nuts to me but quite frankly seems like anything could happen tonight.
Local council budgets are being cut. Libraries and swimming pools, after school activities, policing. All being eroded.
From what I see of the news, it's somehow different this time. Perhaps more nihilistic, versus the more confrontational riots in the eighties. It definitely seems there's a goal of hitting shops full of 'shinys'.
Of course, modern messaging may also be playing a part in enabling more 'agile' riots.
Black bloc animals will seize upon any cause, just or otherwise, as an excuse to loot and cause mayhem - and the worst part is, their mere presence erodes the credibility of otherwise legitimate groups with legitimate grievances.
Rome has a similar thing with the Carabinieri, I understand these guys are part of the military.
The City of London police don't especially carry firearms. That said, you may see more of the specially armed police in the City, simply because of a high terrorist threat
This is not 'immigrant communities', this is people who were born here.
NB - I'm not normally a stickler for sourcing, but I feel a statement as controversial as this requires one.
What has been reported is that it's youth from poor neighborhoods. Considering the population composition of those neighborhoods, I'm going to guess that it's probable the groups are composed of a majority of people from those immigrant communities. It still doesn't mean it's a immigrant riot. I bet poor non-immigrant (as in their family always been there) are also participating.